Things have been tough between me and my father and sister for years. I won't bore you with the details but it comes down to my father and sister not being fair to my mother. There is also some resentment towards me for moving away from the east and putting distance between them and their grandson. Still I love them and my parents gave me everything I needed - support and the occassional kick in the rear - not mention paying for my college education. If my family needed me I would not hesitate.

Could I disown my parents? My mother - never. I could disown my sister and father, the things they have done are pretty inexcusable. However I would never disown them, it would crush my mother, she has never given up on them and I can never give up on her. Even in the event that my mother was gone I would never disown them or stop contacting them.

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:10 pm

Message

HogyMaster

Joined: 14 Dec 2011Posts: 918Location: Nar Shaddaa

Dead thread brought back to life becouse of me but still.....

I'm not goeing into the theoretical stuff, but all my life I listen to BLOOD IS NOT WATER. I only have 1 sister which I love to hell and would do anything for her, (blood is not water) but I have a lot of cousins and second cousins and second something or others. One of witch is a drunk of poor judgement. He gets into a lot of serious situations, provokes a fight, touches someones girl, ect. By choice of faith, he lives very neer me and sometimes his "poor decisions" become my problems (blood is not water). I bail him out most of the times (blood is not water), but sometimes....(blood is not water).

I hate fighting for the wrong guy (blood is not water), I hate fighting, but I just can't reprograme myself without (blood is not water) line.

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:50 pm

Message

DarthMRNKnight

Joined: 20 Jul 2011Posts: 296

Hm. Interesting question posed by the OP.

Parents do have every evolutionary reason to support and tolerate their kids pretty much no matter what. Statistical outliers will always exist for one reason or another, but disownment as a concept is far too well known for it to be that rare. So why, then?

I am reminded of historical cultures who put unfit newborns out into nature to die, and it seems like it would be related. If I am eyeballing the state of being transgender right, then there is one underlying evolutionary rationale I can think of: The kid would be unfit for procreation, by grace of having a gender identity that would for one reason or another make it hard to mate with the opposite sex.

If transgender-ism, as I believe, is a spontaneous mutation resulting from the fetus starting out female and needing to grow male, and something going wrong during that inevitable process, leading the resulting human to become some mixture between the two, then it would be a trait impossible to evolve away from, and thus having always existed. And if so, it stands to reason that rejection of such individuals would have been adaptive to our ancestors, in that humans unfit to procreate were not allowed to burden their societies, leaving more resources for the gender-normative ones.

Heck if I know if that is the case, but I need something as extreme as that to make sense of why a parent would reject a child, which is about the most maladaptive thing any human can do._________________I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.